Gustavo Segura Santoyo v. Consolidated Foundries Inc. et al
Filing
29
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER Re Plaintiff Motion to Remand #15 by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell: The Court finds that Plaintiff has established grounds for remand in this case. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Motion to Remand. Thehearing currently set for Tuesday, October 17, 2016, is hereby VACATED. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)
JS-6
LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.
CV 16-02232 BRO (SSx)
Title
GUSTAVO SEGURA SANTOYO V. CONSOLIDATED FOUNDRIES, INC. ET AL
Date
October 13, 2016
Present: The Honorable
BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District Judge
Renee A. Fisher
Not Present
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
(IN CHAMBERS)
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND [15]
I.
INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Gustavo Segura Santoyo’s (“Plaintiff”)
Motion to Remand. (Dkt. No. 15 (hereinafter, “Mot.”).) After considering the papers
filed in support of the unopposed instant Motion, the Court deems this matter appropriate
for resolution without oral argument of counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 715. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a California resident, worked for Consolidated Foundries Inc.
(“Consolidated Foundries”), Consolidated Precision Products Corp. (“Precision
Products”), and Resource Employment Solutions LLC (“Resource Employment”)
(collectively, “Defendants”) from November 2011 through August 2015. (Dkt. No. 1
(hereinafter, “Removal”), Ex. 1 (hereinafter, “Compl.”) ¶ 8.) Consolidated Foundries is a
California corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio. (Id. ¶ 9.) Precision
Products is the parent corporation to Consolidated Foundries1 and is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio. (Id. ¶¶ 9–10.) Resource
Employment is a Florida corporation with its primary place of business in Florida and is
the staffing company for the Consolidated Defendants. (Id. ¶ 11.)
1
The Court refers to Precision Products and Consolidated Foundries collectively as the “Consolidated
Defendants.”
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Page 1 of 6
LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.
CV 16-02232 BRO (SSx)
Title
GUSTAVO SEGURA SANTOYO V. CONSOLIDATED FOUNDRIES, INC. ET AL
Date
October 13, 2016
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed: (1) to pay employees overtime wages
because they improperly rounded the time that employees worked, (id. ¶ 18); (2) to
provide employees meal periods and rest periods as required by California law, (id.
¶¶ 19–21); and, (3) to provide itemized wage statements showing the total hours worked
and the pay due for skipped meal and rest breaks, (id. ¶ 22).
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees, filed this class
action on March 3, 2016, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
(“Los Angeles Superior Court”). (See Compl.) Plaintiff alleges the following eight state
law causes of action against Defendants: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to
pay minimum wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest
periods; (5) failure to pay wages due upon termination; (6) failure to provide accurate
wage statements; (7) unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code
section 17200; and, (8) civil penalties for violation of the Private Attorney General Act
(“PAGA”), California Labor Code section 2699. (Compl. ¶¶ 34–88.)
On April 1, 2016, Consolidated Defendants filed a Notice of Removal in this Court
based on the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). (See Removal.)
On May 2, 2016, Resource Employment filed a Joinder to the Notice of Removal, (see
Dkt. No. 13), and Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Remand back to Los Angeles
Superior Court, (see Mot.). Defendants filed their Answer on May 16, 2016. (Dkt. No.
23.) On September 19, 2016,2 Consolidated Defendants filed a Statement of NonOpposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, (see Dkt. No. 27), and on September 30,
2016, Resource Employment filed its own Statement of Non-Opposition, (see Dkt. No.
28).3
2
The parties twice stipulated to the continuation of the hearing on the instant Motion. (Dkt Nos. 21,
25.)
3
Though Defendants do not oppose this Motion, the Court is under a continuing duty to determine its
own subject matter jurisdiction. See Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1996).
Thus, the Court must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction or whether this case should be
remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Page 2 of 6
LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.
CV 16-02232 BRO (SSx)
Title
GUSTAVO SEGURA SANTOYO V. CONSOLIDATED FOUNDRIES, INC. ET AL
Date
October 13, 2016
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction and possess only that jurisdiction which is
authorized by either the Constitution or federal statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Pursuant to CAFA, a federal district court has
jurisdiction over “any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which any
member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant,” so
long as the class has more than 100 members. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A), (d)(5)(B).
Generally, courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction.”
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). However, “no antiremoval
presumption attends cases invoking CAFA, which Congress enacted to facilitate
adjudication of certain class actions in federal court.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating
Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014) (citation omitted).
As noted above, to meet the diversity requirement under CAFA, a removing
defendant must show “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different
from any defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). “Thus, under CAFA, complete
diversity is not required; ‘minimal diversity’ suffices.” Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478
F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
To meet the amount-in-controversy requirement under CAFA, a removing
defendant must plausibly assert that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. See
Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). This requires only a
“short and plain statement” of the grounds for removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446; Dart, 135 S.
Ct. at 553–54. This language tracks that of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), and the
Supreme Court has instructed courts to apply this same liberal pleading standard in cases
of removal involving CAFA. See Dart, 135 S. Ct. at 553. But where “the plaintiff
contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation” in its notice of removal,
further evidence establishing that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional
minimum is required. Id. at 554. Though there no presumption against removal exists,
the Court must determine, “by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-incontroversy requirement has been satisfied.” Id.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Page 3 of 6
LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.
CV 16-02232 BRO (SSx)
Title
GUSTAVO SEGURA SANTOYO V. CONSOLIDATED FOUNDRIES, INC. ET AL
Date
October 13, 2016
IV.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks to have the instant case remanded to state court. Plaintiff claims
that Defendants have failed to meet their burden to prove jurisdiction under § 1332(d),
and therefore, removal was improper. (See Mot. at 3–4.) Defendants do not oppose
Plaintiff’s Motion. For the following reasons, the Court finds that removal was improper
and remand is appropriate.
A.
Defendants Have Failed to Show Diversity of the Parties
First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to sufficiently plead that there is
minimal diversity of citizenship among the parties. (See Mot. at 6–7.) As explained
above, minimal diversity requires only that “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a
citizen of a State different from any defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). However,
“a party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the
actual citizenship of the relevant parties.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853,
857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Failure to specify a plaintiff’s state citizenship is
fatal to a defendant’s assertion of diversity jurisdiction. Id. Here, Defendants assert that
Plaintiff is a citizen of California because he is resident of California. (Removal ¶ 12.)
But a “person’s state citizenship is [] determined by [their] state of domicile, not [their]
state of residence.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857. A “person is domiciled in a location where
he or she has established a fixed habitation or abode in a particular place, and [intends] to
remain there permanently or indefinitely.” Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749–50 (9th Cir.
1986) (alteration in original) (citations omitted). Defendants have not provided any
evidence that Plaintiff has established a fixed habitation in California or that Plaintiff
intends to remain in California permanently, but only that Plaintiff currently resides in
California. (See Removal ¶ 12). Therefore, the Court finds that the Defendants have
failed to affirmatively allege Plaintiff’s citizenship and have provided no citizenship
information regarding any other potential class members. As such, the Court finds that
Defendants failed to sufficiently plead minimal diversity as required by § 1332(d).
B.
Defendants Have Failed to Show that Damages Exceed $5,000,000
Moreover, even assuming Plaintiff is domiciled in California, Defendants have
failed to establish that it is more likely than not that damages in this action meet the
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Page 4 of 6
LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.
CV 16-02232 BRO (SSx)
Title
GUSTAVO SEGURA SANTOYO V. CONSOLIDATED FOUNDRIES, INC. ET AL
Date
October 13, 2016
jurisdictional minimum. “The district court shall have original jurisdiction of any civil
action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000.” 28
U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). Here, Defendants assert the amount in controversy in this action,
without attorneys’ fees, is between $4,826,141 and $20,824,841. (Removal ¶ 32.) Of the
alleged maximum damages amount of $20,824,841, $3,639,641 of the alleged damages
arise from non-PAGA claims while $17,185,200 arise from PAGA claims. (Id. ¶¶ 24–
32.) However, the Ninth Circuit has held that PAGA claims are not class actions claims,
see Baumann v. Chase Inv. Servs. Corp, 747 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir. 2014), and that
“the amount involved in the non-class claims cannot be used to satisfy the CAFA
jurisdictional amount,” Yocupicio v. PAE Grp., LLC, 795 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir.
2015). Therefore, the Court cannot consider any damages arising from the PAGA claims
to determine if the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.
In their Removal, Defendants contend that the Court should include attorneys’ fees
when calculating the amount in controversy. (Removal ¶¶ 33–38.) “[W]here an
underlying statute authorizes an award of attorneys’ fees, either with mandatory or
discretionary language, such fees may be included in the amount in controversy.” Galt
G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, Plaintiff seeks
attorneys’ fees under California Labor Code sections 218.5 and 1194. (Compl. at 19;
Removal ¶ 33.) However, Defendants estimate that the attorneys’ fees amount to
$416,666.62. (Removal ¶ 35.) Thus, even including attorneys’ fees, the amount in
controversy equals only $4,056,307.62 (attorneys’ fees along with the $3,639,641 in nonPAGA damages). Thus, Defendants fail to establish that it is more likely than not that the
amount in controversy exceeds the $5,000,000 jurisdictional minimum under CAFA.
Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants have not sufficiently established
evidence that there is minimal diversity in this case or that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5,000,000. Because Defendants failed to establish the requirements for
diversity jurisdiction under CAFA, the Court finds that removal was improper.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Page 5 of 6
LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.
CV 16-02232 BRO (SSx)
Title
GUSTAVO SEGURA SANTOYO V. CONSOLIDATED FOUNDRIES, INC. ET AL
Date
October 13, 2016
V.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established grounds for
remand in this case. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. The
hearing currently set for Tuesday, October 17, 2016, is hereby VACATED.
:
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of
Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
rf
Page 6 of 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?